She remembers how her military mother understood from the first shot that war had started and urged her to go down to the basement.

“I did not understand how the war started at once, because it was a surprise for all of us. When we heard the sound of first, second, third shot, we went down to the basement. It was normal for us.”

She told that as soon as they felt the danger of the road being completely closed, all the people of Artsakh went to shops, made purchases and stocked up.

“At that time, the coupon system began to operate, and people went and stood in line for hours for half a loaf of bread. But we endured, we knew what we were fighting for.”

Speaking about the reintegration of Artsakh residents into Azerbaijan, Anna excluded it.

“We cannot live with a nation, which beheads everyone starting from child to elderly.”

Our interlocutor could not express in words the feelings she felt when she heard that they would have to leave Artsakh.

“When I went down to the yard, I saw that all the neighbors were preparing to move in their cars, but we didn’t have a car. One of my acquaintances called and said that there is room for one person in their car. I didn’t want to leave my mother and grandmother alone, but my mother preferred that I would leave and be saved, rather than stay with them in an uncertain situation.”

After leaving Artsakh, Anna was given hope by the fact that they were leaving without any loss of life, but Anna lost her brother as a result of the explosion.

————————

Iravaban.net seeks help from citizens who will voluntarily agree to translate materials into different languages: Russian, English, French, Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Georgian, Chinese…

You can write to our e-mail address at: [email protected]

To donate for realization of the project: https://iravaban.net/en/become-a-supporter

Armenian Lawyers’ Association is the author of the idea “Artsakh: Armenian Genocide 2023. Stories of Survivors” documentary project of Iravaban.net and is the owner of copyright of the materials created within the framework of the project. In case of using the materials produced within the framework of the project, it is necessary to obtain the written permission of the Armenian Lawyers’ Association.

Details in the video.

Mariam Antonyan

It should be noted that in addition to Andranik Piloyan, Ashot Hakobyan, Vigen Mkrtchyan, Hrachya Yeremyan, Mihrdat Matevosyan, Artur Ohanyan, Ara Yaghjyan, Gor Hambardzumyan, Artak Beibutyan, Tatul Gevorgyan, Tigran Gasparyan, Gagik Poghosyan and Vigen Grigoryan (arrested) were also charged.

According to Iravaban.net, two more defendants were questioned at the court session in this case.

Vigen Mkrtchyan was the first to be interrogated/ He stated that he is guilty of the charges presented to him, in particular, bribery and robbery, and he regrets for what he did.

He stated that the pre-trial statements are not true, he completely renounces them, and he is ready to tell the whole truth in court. He got acquainted with the Minister of Minister of Emergency Situations Andranik Piloyan during his service, in June 2018, when the latter was the commander of the 5th Army Corps of the RA Armed Forces, and he was appointed the head of the armor service of the same corps, and had been on good relations with the latter since then.

He left job in March 2021, and joined the RA Ministry of Emergency Situations, first as the deputy head of the equipment and repair base of the rear and logistical support department, then as the head of the same base, where he actually served until March 2022.

On 6 January, 2024, he was released from his position according to personal application. Referring to the episode of bribery, he said that he recognizes himself guilty and regrets for what he did. In relation of Artur Ohanyan, who is accused for the same episode, he mentioned that he has known him since childhood, they studied in the same class, in the same course, and besides, they have family ties.

At the beginning of September 2021, Artur Ohanyan asked him to talk to the Minister of Emergency Situations Andranik Piloyan, if possible, so that the latter intervenes to reassign Ohanyan, continue his service in the military unit located in Ararat city, or otherwise help him to serve near his place of residence.

According to Vigen Mkrtchyan, Andranik Piloyan and Artur Ohanyan previously performed joint service, and in addition, during the 44-day war, the latter had jointly participated in combat operations. Piloyan told him that he did not work in the RA Armed Forces, and the probability that he would be able to pass there was small, it would be better to help Ohanyan transfer to the Ministry of of Emergency Situations.

After that, he was sent to the Republic of Poland, in the same period Artur Ohanyan and Andranik Piloyan met, and Piloyan offered Ohanyan the position of the commander of the MES fire rescue squad.

“We met with Artur and talked about how he should for the favor. I should mention that Andranik Piloyan did not demand anything in return for Artur’s appointment during the conversations he had with me or Arthur, but, in any case, since Arthur’s order was already there, he wanted to be rewarded in some way and to express his gratitude. We discussed and decided that he should buy a gold bar (925 sg) and present it to Andranik Piloyan as an appreciation for Artur’s appointment,” the accused said.

He also stated that Artur transferred the gold bar he bought to him in order to give it to Piloyan. In February 2022, the bar, according to the protocol of the wiretapping examination, was transferred to Piloyan in his car, saying that it was a gratitude for Artur’s appointment to job.

Referring to the robbery episode, the accused said that he recognizes himself guilty and regrets for what he had done. Hrachya Yeremyan called him several times and told that the buildings of the “Gagarin” area should be handed over to the RA State Property Management Committee in the near future. The accused refused, saying that it was not part of his duties, but the latter informed the management, after which he provided trucks several times to carry out the work.

The accused also mentioned that he often met with Hrachya Yeremyan and Andranik Piloyan, he said that he had a “welder” neighbor Armen who can do that work, and the latter said that they did not see any problem for payment. Together with Armen, they went to the “Gagarin” area in a company car, Armen measured all the metal objects to be dismantled, after which they started the dismantling works. He informed both the Minister and Yeremyan about it. “I did not agree with Andranik Piloyan or Hrachya Yeremyan that I should take some money from the sale of these products or that I should give them. I did not expect to earn money at all.”

Vigen Mkrtchyan refused to answer the questions. The judge noted that, taking into account the person’s right to cross-examination, they can listen to the question and then understand the position of the accused, and maybe he wants to answer any specific question.

Andranik Piloyan’s the defense attorney Andranik Manukyan, said that asking questions has a targeted meaning, because the court evaluates the evidence, among other components, also on the basis of its internal conviction. Accordingly, he asked to pay special attention to why or which questions Vigen Mkrtchyan refuses to answer.

The lawyer noticed that the accused was quite “clumsy in reading” and, accordingly, asked the following question: did he type the document himself using the computer or not, and if so, what was the reason for such “clumsy” reading?

The accused did not answer the question, and Varazdat Badalyan, his defender, emphasized again that he has the right not to answer any question.

Andranik Manukyan then was interested in for how many times the accused was interrogated during the preliminary investigation; also the content of at least four of the preliminary statements contradicts the content of the statement given by the accused in court, and what was the reason for refusing these statements? Why, according to the accused, should the court believe him now, when he already proved in his own words that he lied once? Why should the court believe a person who has lied four times?

Mkrtchyan’s lawyer objected to the question, saying: “The accused said his word. You will provide your evaluations in the final speech: which was true and which was false. I think that the court will refer to it in the final judicial act, comparing it with the other factual data available in the case. I believe that the defense attorney does not have the right to ask the court a question at this time.”

In response to the defender’s objection, Manukyan said: “I will ask you not to teach me, especially from the point of view of criminal procedure or criminal law. Mr. Badalyan is aware of how much or to what extent I possess them. I’m not evaluating, I’m expressing my conviction.”

The accused also refused to answer the question that the defense attorney asked about the robbery and other circumstances.

Andranik Piloyan’s defense attorney submitted a petition to publish the pre-trial statements of the accused, which were given in May, June, and September 2022.

The court allowed the publication of the testimonies, in which, according to the points presented by the defense attorney, there are contradictions.

Mkrtchyan stated in his pre-examination testimony regarding the episode of bribery and the hiring of Artur Ohanyan. “When Artur was at Piloyan’s reception, I was not informed about it, at that time I was on a business trip in Poland, I want to say that I could not have any agreement with any official regarding Artur’s issue. As for transferring a gold bar as a bribe, I do not understand what kind of bar it is, I did not take or transfer a gold bar or other valuable item from Artur Ohanyan to any official.

In the pre-examination testimony, the accused said about the dismantling episode that he had nothing to do with the “Gagarin” area, the minister had set a task for him to organize the dismantling and transportation process with his own forces, and to transport the dismantled goods to the MES for the needs of the unit. He himself realized that a legal process is being carried out, he was even told that the properties to be dismantled were not on the balance sheet. He learned about it from Hrachya Yeremyan.

In the pre-trial testimony, the accused stated about the illegal possession and use of the dismantled property. “The Minister’s order referred to the dismantling of the property and not to its demolition, I have fulfilled the order. Being the head of the base, could I have committed embezzlement, if the purpose of dismantling the property was to modify the same property and use it later for the needs of the MES? What information in the criminal proceedings confirms the opposite?

Piloyan’s defense attorney Andranik asked the accused again that he wants to understand if the fabricated statements are false, then what was the motive for it, why did he give a false statement?

Varazdat Badalyan objected, stressing that the question is repeated. “I noticed a progress, that even Mr. Manukyan, speaking about the pre-examination testimony, says that their content is a lie. I would like to remove the question.”

While making statements, a verbal altercation took place between the two defenders, because Andranik Manukyan mentioned Varazdat Badalyan’s uncle in his speech, who was connected with one of the precedent decisions of the Court of Cassation.

Defense attorney Varazdat Badalyan told Manukyan: “I do not understand your personal interest and your desire to turn it into a personal one.”

The court appeased the parties, saying that otherwise it will apply sanctions.

The accused Artur Ohanyan was questioned at the court session. Regarding expressing a position related to the accusation, Ohanyan stated that he recognizes himself guilty, but does not want to express a position, and, exercising his right to remain silent, does not want to testify or answer any questions.

Andranik Piloyan’s defense attorney, asked whether any bribe, or any object was demanded from the accused for hiring him or not, the latter refused to answer that question either.

The Court session was postponed.

Mariam Shahnazaryan

The legal assistance includes:

• Documenting the problems of people forcibly displaced from Artsakh,
• Providing free legal assistance to forcibly displaced persons from Nagorno-Karabakh and are considered vulnerable (socially insecure, unemployed, disabled, student, woman, and etc.) for solving issues with state and local self-government bodies,
• Protection of the rights of Artsakh Armenians and representation of interests in the RA state bodies.

To receive legal assistance forcibly displaced persons from Artsakh can call at: +374 10 540199 or write to the following e-mail address:  [email protected].

“Strengthening of Rights Protection Mechanisms of Forcibly Displaced Persons from Nagorno Karabakh” Project is implemented by the “Armenian Lawyers’ Association” NGO in cooperation with partner “Harmony” Shushi Women NGO in the framework of the “Justice Reforms Monitoring in Armenia” (www.juremonia.am) program implemented with the financial support of the European Union. The overall objective of the project is to contribute to the integration of FDPs from NK into their new communities of residence in Armenia, enhancing access to justice and raising the level of legal awareness by strengthening their rights protection mechanisms, 

This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the Armenian Lawyers’ Association and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

1) Grigoryan Vahe,

2) Karapetyan Nora,

3) Kocharyan Vigen.

To remind, the Commission for the Selection of Candidates nominated by the Republic of Armenia for the position of Judge of the European Court of Human Rights, from 7 candidates, proposed to the Government the nominations of Mr. Vahe Grigoryan, Judge of the Constitutional Court, Ms Nora Karapetyan, President of the Civil Court of Appeal and, Mr. Vigen Kocharyan , member of the Supreme Judicial Council.

There were 7 applicants who passed the interview stage.

1. Alumyan Hayk
2. Grigoryan Liza
3. Grigoryan Vahe
4. Karapetyan Nora
5. Mazmanyan Armen
6. Margaryan Anna
7. Kocharyan Vigen.

The mentioned 3 candidates passed the interview stage.

According to Iravaban.net, Attorney Artak Voskanyan said at yesterday’s session that all written evidence in this case had been examined, all witnesses had been interrogated, and under these conditions, the basis for keeping Mamiko Aslanyan in custody have become pointless.

“Taking into account the fact that there is no longer the circumstance of exerting illegal influence on the witnesses in the case, due to the absence of such witnesses, I am petitioning to cancel the order of measure of restraint applied to Mamikon Aslanyan, the arrest, and to choose a measure of restraint “signature not to leave”” the defender said.

According to Voskanyan, even the use of bail becomes meaningless, but if the Court makes such a decision, the possibility of choosing the use of bail as a measure of restraint will be made the subject of examination. The amount of bail: 2 million drams.

Today, on 26 April, Presiding Judge Sargis Dadoyan published the final part of the decision on the petition. The Court decided to reject Mamikon Aslanyan’s motion to change the measure of restraint.

Notably, Mamikon Aslanyan is accused of expropriating Vanadzor lands by making false documents during his tenure. According to the indictment, Suren Abovyan helped Vanadzor Community Head Mamikon Aslanyan, who is an official, to exceed the official powers and commit official forgery.

Notably, Mamikon Aslanyan is accused of expropriating Vanadzor lands by making false documents during his tenure. According to the indictment, Suren Abovyan helped Vanadzor Community Head Mamikon Aslanyan, who is an official, to exceed the official powers and commit official forgery.

According to Iravaban.net, the defense side presented a motion to change the order of measure of restraint against Mamikon Aslanyan.

Lawyer Artak Voskanyan stated that all the written evidence in this case has been examined, all the witnesses mentioned in the indictment and the basis of the accusations have been interrogated, that is, in the conditions of the completion of the interrogation of the witnesses, the grounds for keeping Mamikon Aslanyan in custody have become irrelevant.

“Taking into account the fact that there is no longer the circumstance of exerting illegal influence on the witnesses in the case, due to the absence of such witnesses, I am petitioning to cancel the order of measure of restraint applied to Mamikon Aslanyan, the arrest, and to choose a measure of restraint “signature not to leave”” the defender said.

It should also be noted that there were two other defendants in this case, against whom the same measure of restraint was initially chosen, and the defense previously petitioned for replacing the arrest by bail.

Based on all this, the lawyer mentioned that even the use of bail becomes meaningless, but if the Court makes such a decision, the possibility of choosing the use of bail as a measure of restraint will be made the subject of examination. The amount of bail: 2 million drams.

Defendant Mamikon Aslanyan stated during the discussion of the petition that he does not have a prejudice against the professional abilities of the Court and the prosecutor, but the decision should be unequivocal, the application of laws and the decisions that should be made issuing from the law should be made correctly and without hesitation.

“This is a case of such public resonance that I, being a candidate for the mayor elected by my fellow citizens, at any stage, starting with the preliminary investigation and ending with this stage, I can declare without any hesitation that I have not committed such an act in any period of my activity that would in any way cause me to be under arrest, or to embarrass, or to cause disappointment among my fellow citizens,” Aslanyan said.

The other participants of the defense side also joined the petition, recording the fact that the interrogation of the witnesses has been completed.

The behavior of the accused while in custody was also discussed. The defense emphasized that the person has been in prison for 2 years and 4 months and they have not received any report about the illegal behavior or any violations in the penitentiary institutions by the accused.

The public prosecutor expressed his position regarding the presented petition, saying that the legal question raised before the Court for the resolution of the petition was whether the grounds for detaining the defendant Mamikon Aslanyan decreased or whether new grounds for detention appeared during this period. Narek Movsisyan objected to the petition regarding the amendment of the measure of restraint.

According to the prosecutor’s assessment, the result of the examination of the mentioned evidence makes Mamikon Aslanyan’s conviction highly probable.

“At first glance, one may form an opinion that the grounds for applying detention to the defendant as a measure of restraint have disappeared, but I must draw the attention of the Court to the fact that the results of the evidence examined in Court provide a basis for the prosecution, that they make the defendant’s conviction highly probable. This indicates that the defendant, remaining at liberty, will avoid criminal liability and the imposed punishment, thus hindering the execution of the Court’s verdict,” the public prosecutor emphasized.

Addressing the public prosecutor, Mamikon Aslanyan said that during the stages of the trial, the latter was engaged in political hostage-taking towards him, because one of the inalienable human rights, life and freedom, is encroached with “Bolshevik cynicism”.

“I will not back down until we reach the end point of some political order,” Aslanyan said.

Public prosecutor Narek Movsisyan urged to show proper behavior, respect or at least take an example from the accuser on how to be respectful towards the participants of the trial. He asked the Court to apply sanctions.

The judge said that if the chairman decides that it is necessary to apply procedural sanctions against any of the parties, then they will be applied immediately.

The discussion of the petition is over, the Court decision will be published on 26. April

Details in the video.

Mariam Shahnazaryan

Although the Zangezur Copper Molybdenum Combine, which is in the leading positions, is in the 3rd position according to the index of the first 3 months of 2024, but compared to the first quarter of 2023, the taxes paid by the company to the state budget have increased by around 140 million drams.

Accordingly, the list of large taxpayers is headed by “Mobile Center Art” LLC, which paid 19 billion 907 million 415 thousand AMD in taxes.

“Gazprom Armenia” Company, which paid 18 billion 162 million 346 thousand drams is on the second position. In 2023, Gazprom Armenia topped the list of large taxpayers.

“Grand Tobacco” Company, which paid 13 billion 215 million 530 AMD is the 4th.

“Pretty Way” LLC, “Vesta” Chain of Stores, which contributed 8 billion 810 million 850 thousand drams this year is the 5th.

He mentioned in his speech that it is a very responsible moment, because he has to give a public speech for the first time as an advocate.

Referring to the status of advocacy in Armenia and its relationship with the state, he noted that the advocacy institute has a long history of development, advocacy has become one of the important indicators of the maturity or democracy of this or that state and society.

He noted that in Mkhitar Gosh’s “Judgment Book”, which was considered a serious legal document for the given period, advocacy was not accepted from the point of view of justice, on the contrary, Gosh believed that justice should not be distorted through eloquent speech. “If we look at the concept of civil society, which gives its characteristic features in various theoretical interpretations, we understand that any civil institution has certain control functions over the activities of public authorities.”

According to him, the representatives of the state administration system often do not perceive advocacy from the point of view of public legal activity, but try to present it simply as a business activity. Here, the fundamental role of advocacy and the functions of a constitutional nature are being undermined.

The ideology of ensuring the supremacy of law and protecting human rights lies at the heart of legal activity. The idea of ​​formation of the Advocacy Institute lies at the basis of the protection of human rights.

“As we know, constitutionally, the main guarantor of the protection of human rights and the responsibility of the rule of law rests on the shoulders of the judiciary. Having an independent court is not only an ideal that all states have historically strived for, but it is also a positive obligation of the state established by the Constitution today. Advocacy plays a very important role in having an independent court,” Marabyan said.

The candidate of legal sciences added that advocacy should be the important tool that should hold the court accountable to the public, force the court to respect the law and the right, and protect the rights of the person in the context of the rule of law.

Details in the video.

Arman Tatoyan and Sergey Marabyan make reports.